U.S. to boost financing for Ukrainian navy after Russian attack
33 replies, posted
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The United States will provide an additional $10 million in military financing to Ukraine to bolster its navy after Russia captured three Ukrainian vessels at sea
last month, in a “dangerous escalation,” the State Department said on Friday.
The move comes after Lithuania and the United Kingdom increased their security assistance to Ukraine, the department said, following the Nov. 25 attack near the Kerch Strait.
“The United States calls on Russia to immediately return to Ukraine the seized vessels and detained Ukrainian crews, to keep the Kerch Strait and the Sea of Azov open to ships
transiting to and from Ukrainian ports, and to respect Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity,” the State Department added.
Russia opened fire on the Ukrainian ships and then seized them and their crews near Crimea - which Russia annexed from Ukraine in March 2014. The Kerch Strait is the only outlet
to the Sea of Azov and controls access to two major Ukrainian ports. The incident prompted U.S. President Donald Trump to call off a meeting with Russia’s Vladimir Putin in Argentina
to signal Washington’s disapproval of Russian behavior in the naval clash with Ukraine.
"hold my drink cheesburger" -Trump
$10 Million is nothing for Military spending, but its $10M more than they had, so it's a good start. I would hope this is the start of us standing by the Ukrainians, but that's probably wishful thinking. A shame that no one seems to want to past a few dollars and some words.
Now I'm waiting to see how will Trump fuck it up.
Ukraine deserves everything NATO can give it. Not only for the sake of its own sovereignty, but for the sake of making a statement to Russia. Appeasement never works.
This is a drop in the bucket. After 1991 Ukraine had one of the most powerful armies of the former SSRs, there is no amount of aid from others that will reverse the kind of decay that followed. Similarly, the support for liberal reform we provide is also probably a fool's errand in the end. I'm really not seeing the long-term transformational path for this country.
Maybe this is just a clever ploy to build up the Russian navy. Give the Ukrainians money to buy new ships to replace the ones the Russians stole and then the Russians can steal the new ones too
a whole navy of 4-5 operational ships? not much to steal unless they get to our bridge without warning again.
Please send them weapons, if you want Russia to have a fit is if you actually arm and begin to assist in training the Ukrainian military.
I still feel like it should've been Ukraine, not Turkey, that was given NATO status. Then again, Turkey only recently went batshit.
Ukraine was part of USSR by the time Turkey joined NATO. Like, seriously, Turkey joined in 1952. With Greece, first to be invited and join NATO after it's founding in 1949.
have you been paying attention to the news lately? it's literally all happening again
Given Russia's habit of taking chunks out of states that share borders with them, regardless of the ethnic makeup, in this case it is a totally accurate comparison.
You're basically the type of person George Santayana had in mind when he wrote "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."
Appeasing Russia really will not work, only a strong resolute defense will.
What was Crimea for 100 please?
A bunch of troops wearing clearly Russian camouflage and equipment, vehicles with no markings march into Crimea and surround all vital strategic points whilst a civilian movement "takes control" wanting to become part of Russia, lo and behold Russia is already there to help them.
"We didn't do anything to Ukraine, but fuck them amirite? Their navy fucking sucks and if they actually did something, we would've stolen everything from them."
Christ make you're a walking stereotype.
Imagine unironically defending blatant violations of sovereignty.
this "Sins of the Father" mentality is bullshit.
Yes. Don't pay attention to people who don't know anything beyond poorly thought out parallels to their 30s their politicians try to peddle. There is nuance beyond rolling over or having a backbone.
Historically, appeasement has not worked. Political scientists today continue to believe that its a poor strategy for survival.
Countries are also very reluctant on bargaining if it entails the aggressor might spare them. Ukraine simply can't risk it.
People need something to believe in, and this historical mandate that we evolved in order to rise to those challenges in the wake of British and French decline has become just that. It's incredibly effective and people respond to the appeals. It utterly defines our political culture.
But it's not even just about an overemphasis, it's also about half-truths. The reason Europe is democratic is not just US leadership, but proper delineation of borders that happened after both WW1, such as with Greece and Turkey in the Eastern Question you mention, and WW2, like seen in the destruction of Prussia. With the latter we ironically owe the Soviets a lot of credit, their forceful reorganization of Eastern Europe being a foundation for liberal development in the wake of communist collapse. In the last mass destruction of empires after WW1, Eastern Europe partly degenerated into a 'war of pygmies'. We don't see that today for a reason.
Modern political development and the outcome of conflict has consistently trended towards refinement of borders and who states represent, and we are now approaching that for the former USSR. Ukraine is a fine example, its post-Soviet existence being a history of confusion complicated by external developments like EU/NATO expansion and a resurgent Russia with a chip on its shoulder after failed liberalization.
The confusion is best captured by its two poles in politics. In the far west of the country, you have the Catholic, nationalistic Galician area that was only recently annexed by the USSR in 1939 with all the baggage that suggests. In the far east you have the Russian-dominated Donbass, which is defined first by a legacy as a Tsarist colony, second as a Bolshevik stronghold during the civil war (whose flag the rebels now use), third as an addition to the Ukrainian SSR during Korenization as part of a) developing Ukraine as a nation and b) an example of the Soviet identity overcoming historical divisions. For a time, the communists were quite wary of Russian chauvinism and this actually drew the sympathies of two important Ukrainians in the history of its independence, Vynnychenko and Hrushevsky, the latter being the head of independent Ukraine's 1918 Rada and an important Ukrainian cultural figure who later joined the Communist party during Korenization.
You are right that our overemphasis distorts our view of the world. Not only has it led to a continual discovery of 'Hitlers' in non-Western countries, the neocons being the worst offenders but liberals never being far behind, but it has completely blinded us to the above and how we should handle the former USSR. This has been going on since day one. If you read the gripes of the economist Jeffrey Sachs that helped oversee Polish and Russian transitions during the 80s and 90s, he notes as far back as the first Clinton presidency a Western disinterest in reforming Russia that was born from triumphalism. This was in stark contrast to Poland, which received ample aid.
It also conditions non-Western views of liberalism itself, which for all of today's repudiation of the nationalism it historically depended on, it's ironically parochial because it has never become less Eurocentric. In fact, it's only refined itself as defined by one part of Europe, the Atlantic. This is one of the reasons liberalism has failed to export after 1991 and the Democracy Index has stalled, and it has directly contributed to the incredibly unpopular reputation of Russian liberals as well as the tendency of color revolutions et al to degenerate into internal nationalist conflict that draws in both America and Russia.
These things have helped condition a blowback here in the West in the form of our own 'populist' dissent with everything from free trade to liberal-interventionism. Unfortunately, it appears like our politicians have learned absolutely nothing from everything the dawn of the new millenium.
What we should have learned from the 19th and 20th century is that that empires don't really solve these sensitive regional issues, at least not without great cost. I would speculate the incredible breadth of what Westerns are taught since birth after the collapse of fascism and then communism matches exists in part because of that cost. It's part of numbing people to a burden.
It reminds me of a quote by Rosa Luxemburg during WW1, that the future was international socialism or the barbarism of imperialism and war. You can see exactly what she means in Eastern Europe and the Middle East, which has not seen the 'end of history'.
you shouldn't base your entire political outlook on The Butterfly Effect
No. I'm saying territorial concessions in order to appease an aggressor is fruitless, and extremely dangerous. Russia invaded Ukraine only 4 years ago, and now they should concede territory to that country?
A continued stand-off is preferable. Because regardless if Ukraine tries to satiate Russian demands in Donbass; a stand-off is inevitable or still very likely. Russia will not suddenly become a status-quo power in Europe, because they were given Donbass. Because Russian security prospects in Europe go beyond eastern Ukraine. Seizing territory in the name of saving Russian peoples is a facade for these security prospects, aimed to rationalize and justify Russian behavior in Europe. Creating crises (Crimea, Azov sea) is part of this initiative, you can bet your ass Russia will continue doing that, after concessions are given.
If Ukraine (or Russia, since you imply power projection) is going to collapse, it'll happen regardless of what transpires in Donbass.
i totally disagree. the continuing legacy of American foreign policy is sordid and just because it's complicated and uncomfortable to compare it to often similar Russian/Soviet international doctrine doesn't make wrong to look at both critically. "sins of the father" is nice piece of prose for a hot take but it's wrongly applied here and i think it's actually really disingenuous and kind of grotesque given what we're talking about - this assumption that American motives are totally pure, arbitrarily letting your own nation off the hook. for the record it really also makes you look like a progressive/liberal paper tiger when you drop some serious attitude in every Trump thread and dog on conservatives and then go and take a page straight out their book of apologisms.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.